D&D General What is a "spell"? What isn't?

[Guest 7034872]

What is a spell in the fiction of the game, and what isn't?

This specifically came up in context of spellcasting NPCs having not-spell spell attacks and how to square that in the fiction. But it extends beyond that, to spell like abilities and psionics and magical talents and so on.

Reynard, is this question motivated more by concerns about gameplay ("Borg has resistance against spell attacks, but not abilities, so what happens in this circumstance?") or more by the theoretical question of where the principled line between spells and non-spell magic sits? For example, suppose some PC or NPC can "cast" the equivalent of Fire Bolt as an innate ability. That's clearly a magical attack, but is it a spell attack? Is that the sort of question you're concerned with?

On the theoretical question I'm skeptical there is a coherent line for us to draw, so I'll likely just shrug my shoulders. On the former, though, I imagine there should be some way of fairly adjudicating the dilemmas raised.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Another way to look at the question: when a wizard casts detect magic and a cleric casts detect magic, are they doing fundamentally the same thing? That is, aside for slight variations in skill and/or style, are they making the same important gestures and saying essentially the same magic words? Can a wizard hear the start of the clerics casting and guess what the outcome it will be because they already know the opening words? Are all spellcasting classes doing the same thing with different teachers?

The "no" would mean they are doing two different things (reciting a formula vs praying to a deity for aid), saying different words (likely in different languages) and making different movements, for two effects that are distinct in-universe but modeled the same mechanically because the player gets the same information (even if the pc's don't- ie the wizard sees and the cleric feels, but the players both know there's an enchantment on the door). Are the two "spells" totally different tools for the same job?

5e can support both lines of thinking, since it's so vague about how magic works.

In the first case, aside from a few edge cases the mechanical term "spell" and the in-universe understanding of what a "spell" is will be the same or at least very close, although the wizard pc will have a deeper understanding than the players ever will. In the latter case, "spell" wouldn't be a meaningful in-universe concept unless you're talking to someone of the same class (or another class of the same tradition, like a wizard and an eldritch knight.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Another way to look at the question: when a wizard casts detect magic and a cleric casts detect magic, are they doing fundamentally the same thing? That is, aside for slight variations in skill and/or style, are they making the same important gestures and saying essentially the same magic words? Can a wizard hear the start of the clerics casting and guess what the outcome it will be because they already know the opening words? Are all spellcasting classes doing the same thing with different teachers?

Not to me.

The "no" would mean they are doing two different things (reciting a formula vs praying to a deity for aid), saying different words (likely in different languages) and making different movements, for two effects that are distinct in-universe but modeled the same mechanically because the player gets the same information (even if the pc's don't- ie the wizard sees and the cleric feels, but the players both know there's an enchantment on the door). Are the two "spells" totally different tools for the same job?

To me the wizard is running a diagnostic and relying on training for interpretation but the cleric is given information by their god but mechanically it is the same because the cleric needs to interpret the signs.

5e can support both lines of thinking, since it's so vague about how magic works.

In the first case, aside from a few edge cases the mechanical term "spell" and the in-universe understanding of what a "spell" is will be the same or at least very close, although the wizard pc will have a deeper understanding than the players ever will. In the latter case, "spell" wouldn't be a meaningful in-universe concept unless you're talking to someone of the same class (or another class of the same tradition, like a wizard and an eldritch knight.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I really like this idea. The only problem with it is you have to adjudicate between spell and not-spell on a case by case basis, which can be tedious.

Oh well. I have a 300+ book of house rules, so tedious obviously isn't a problem for me!

It rarely comes up that I have to worry about it. It's not like there are casters out there (PC or NPC) that are going around trying to counterspell the barbarian's use of beast sense after all, LOL.

Anti-magic zones and counterspells are the two things in D&D that seem to me to have the largest disparity between people getting all verklempt over them and them actually ever coming up in-game. The way people go on and on and on about them and how to adjudicate them to me seems wildly disproportionate to the number of times they actually get used. The way some people talk you'd think they are running into anti-magic zones every single session and 2 out of every 3 spells is at risk of being countered. And I do not believe that is even close to being the case.

 

[Minigiant]

It rarely comes up that I have to worry about it. It's not like there are casters out there (PC or NPC) that are going around trying to counterspell the barbarian's use of beast sense after all, LOL.

Anti-magic zones and counterspells are the two things in D&D that seem to me to have the largest disparity between people getting all verklempt over them and them actually ever coming up in-game. The way people go on and on and on about them and how to adjudicate them to me seems wildly disproportionate to the number of times they actually get used. The way some people talk you'd think they are running into anti-magic zones every single session and 2 out of every 3 spells is at risk of being countered. And I do not believe that is even close to being the case.

It's more of a "it's a DM tool so players have to be mindful of it"

Sort of like lycanthropy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It rarely comes up that I have to worry about it. It's not like there are casters out there (PC or NPC) that are going around trying to counterspell the barbarian's use of beast sense after all, LOL.

Anti-magic zones and counterspells are the two things in D&D that seem to me to have the largest disparity between people getting all verklempt over them and them actually ever coming up in-game. The way people go on and on and on about them and how to adjudicate them to me seems wildly disproportionate to the number of times they actually get used. The way some people talk you'd think they are running into anti-magic zones every single session and 2 out of every 3 spells is at risk of being countered. And I do not believe that is even close to being the case.

I expect anti-magic zones are used more by DMs deeply concerned over caster-martial disparity (as are several members of this board). Under normal circumstances I expect you're right.

 

[Minigiant]

Another way to look at the question: when a wizard casts detect magic and a cleric casts detect magic, are they doing fundamentally the same thing? That is, aside for slight variations in skill and/or style, are they making the same important gestures and saying essentially the same magic words? Can a wizard hear the start of the clerics casting and guess what the outcome it will be because they already know the opening words? Are all spellcasting classes doing the same thing with different teachers?

The "no" would mean they are doing two different things (reciting a formula vs praying to a deity for aid), saying different words (likely in different languages) and making different movements, for two effects that are distinct in-universe but modeled the same mechanically because the player gets the same information (even if the pc's don't- ie the wizard sees and the cleric feels, but the players both know there's an enchantment on the door). Are the two "spells" totally different tools for the same job?

5e can support both lines of thinking, since it's so vague about how magic works.

In the first case, aside from a few edge cases the mechanical term "spell" and the in-universe understanding of what a "spell" is will be the same or at least very close, although the wizard pc will have a deeper understanding than the players ever will. In the latter case, "spell" wouldn't be a meaningful in-universe concept unless you're talking to someone of the same class (or another class of the same tradition, like a wizard and an eldritch knight.)

There is a third option.

The wizard and cleric and doing different gestures and vocalizations but producing the same exact effect.

That the Weave/Aether/Web/Force/GodOfMagic allows for different formulas to activate a specific spell.
And for not-spells there is no tap into the Weave/Aether/Web/Force/GodOfMagic nor activation.


This works well with D&D as most casters get magic from someone else or discovering the same spells. There's no Iceball or Smell Invisible. The only spells that exist are the ones in the Weave/Aether/Web/Force/GodOfMagic and only those able to alter that or find the gaps can discover new spells. Wizards are less inventing new spells and more discovering the activations and formula for spells Weave/Aether/Web/Force and naming it after themselves.

 

[Reynard]

Reynard, is this question motivated more by concerns about gameplay ("Borg has resistance against spell attacks, but not abilities, so what happens in this circumstance?") or more by the theoretical question of where the principled line between spells and non-spell magic sits? For example, suppose some PC or NPC can "cast" the equivalent of Fire Bolt as an innate ability. That's clearly a magical attack, but is it a spell attack? Is that the sort of question you're concerned with?

On the theoretical question I'm skeptical there is a coherent line for us to draw, so I'll likely just shrug my shoulders. On the former, though, I imagine there should be some way of fairly adjudicating the dilemmas raised.

Well I started this thread explicitly to talk about the in fiction definition because I don't want to have a circular argument about counterspell.

 

[Reynard]

A mildly thorny thing is the magical abilities that casters may have that aren't spells but produce effects that are very much like those of spells. The easiest example is nearly any use of channel divinity. If we concede that cleric spell casting is manipulating divine energy granted to them by their deity, how is channel divinity different (again, rom an in-fiction perspective).

 

[Minigiant]

A mildly thorny thing is the magical abilities that casters may have that aren't spells but produce effects that are very much like those of spells. The easiest example is nearly any use of channel divinity. If we concede that cleric spell casting is manipulating divine energy granted to them by their deity, how is channel divinity different (again, rom an in-fiction perspective).

Channel Divinty lacks a formula.

It's a near raw emission of the divine sources power.
CD: Turn Undead is just spewing anti-undead energy
CD: Preserve Life is shooting out raw healing magic.

It's sorta like with cartoon and comic wizards shoot volleys of magic energy balls. There's no spell. Just pew pew of raw magic.